(C-621/20 and C-32/21)

The Council of the EU has requested that the Court of Justice of the European Union (General Court of EU) be divested of jurisdiction to the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) to judge the three actions for annulment against the loss of European citizenship of the WA.

We have asked for an accelerated procedure, for the case n°(C-32/21 ) won in Perpignan, in consolidation with case n°(C-673/20), which have been registered at the ECJ, for both preliminary questions concerning the WA.

As a result of the ruling in Perpignan yesterday, Monday 14 December 2020, we get a second preliminary question in Luxembourg before the ECJ. 

Thanks to two courageous British women, we can avoid the abolition of European citizenship for millions of British citizens. 

Auch’s judgment has become final and has been sent to the CJEU. The proceeding will be formalised by the ECJ in the coming days, translated and sent to all Member States.

Also, a slightly different, second prejudicial question referred for a preliminary ruling, will be heard at the Court of Justice of Perpignan on Friday, December 11, 2020, at 11 am.

Thus, an English and a Scottish client will be represented in Luxembourg. 

The following questions will be put to the Court of Justice of the European Union by a national judge in a plenary hearing, it is understood that the ECJ will rule rapidly.    

1.

Should Article 50 of the European Union Treaty and the Agreement of Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union be interpreted as abrogating the European citizenship of British nationals who, before the end of the transitional period, exercised their right to free movement and free establishment in the territory of another Member State, in particular for those residing in the territory of another Member State for more than 15 years and being subject to the British law known as the “15-year rule” depriving them of the right to vote?

2.

If so, the combination of Articles 2, 3, 10, 12 and 127 of the point 6 of its Preamble, and Articles 18, 20 and 21 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union, should the European Union be seen as having allowed these nationals rights to European citizenship of which they enjoyed before the withdrawal of their country from the European Union?

3.

If not, for the second question, is the pension agreement not partially invalid in so far as it violates the principles forming the identity of the European Union, and in particular Articles 18, 20 and 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, but also Articles 39 and 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and does it not violate the principle of proportionality, as it does not include a stipulation allowing them to retain these rights without exclusivity?

4.

In any event, is not Article 127 § 1 (b) of the retirement agreement in part invalid as it violates Articles 18, 20 and 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, but also Articles 39 and 40 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in so far as it deprives the citizens of the Union who have exercised their right to free movement and free establishment in the United Kingdom of the right to vote and to stand as a candidate municipal elections in that country and if the Tribunal and the Court have the same reading as the French Council of State, does this violation not apply to nationals of the United Kingdom who have exercised their freedom of movement and free establishment in the territory of another Member State for more than 15 years subject to the British law known as «15-year rule» depriving them of the right to vote?

 Our case : ECJ, 7.02.2020 C-789/19 P: "The Court has not explicitly established a link between the withdrawal of a Member State from the Union and the loss of the status of citizen of the Union for nationals of that Member State" :

The EU citizenship is a permanent statut for the british abroad

So
 as a result, everything is still possible in Shindler case T/198-20 (good News : hearing in 2021), even annulment of the WA :

Last news of the procedure :

*I will plead for the annulment of the WA withdrawal agreement in 2021 before the Court of the European Union (GCEU) (T-198/20 and T-231/20 for Harry Shindler and others)

*I'm waiting the decision to interpret and suspend Article 127 of the WA which is imminent before the ECJ 

*I have referred the totally deprivation of vote for the British abroad (15 year rule and european/local election) to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)

ACTIONS FOR FAILURE TO ACT

AGAINST THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

BREXIT

Lawyer Julien FOUCHET, associate lawyer of the SCP CORNILLE - FOUCHET, Bar de BORDEAUX remaining 10 Parvis des Chartrons - World City - 33080 BORDEAUX CEDEX, and 116 Boulevard Saint Germain, 75 000 Paris, Tel. 05 56 48 72 90 and 01 85 09 08 09 - Fax 05 56 79 14 41

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen of the council of the European Union,

As you know, following the referendum organised by the United Kingdom on 23 June 2016, the citizens of that country voted overwhelmingly in favour of leaving the European Union, which led to the activation of Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union.

According to this text, in particular, "In the light of the European Council's guidelines, the Union negotiates and concludes an agreement with that State setting out the terms of its withdrawal, taking into account the framework of its future relations with the Union. This agreement is being negotiated in accordance with Article 218, paragraph 3, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It is concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, ruling by qualified majority, after approval by the European Parliament."

Article 218-3 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union states that: "3. The Commission, or the EU's High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, where the proposed agreement focuses exclusively or primarily on the common foreign and security policy, makes recommendations to the Council, which adopts a decision authorising the opening of negotiations and appointing, according to the subject of the proposed agreement, the negotiator or the head of the Union's negotiating team."

In this context, the Council of the European Union has appointed M. Michel Barnier as its chief negotiator. It has also implemented Article 218, with instructions. And, after a long process, the Council of the European Union approved, on 30 January 2020, the agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, which the European Union and the United Kingdom then concluded on 31 January 2020.

This withdrawal agreement essentially defined a transitional phase during which the bulk of EU law remained applicable, but which allowed the United Kingdom to cease being a member state. It was accompanied by the political declaration setting out the framework for future relations between the European Union and the United Kingdom (referenced 2019/C 66 I/02) and whose Article 1 states that:

"1. The European Union, referred to as the 'Union', and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, referred to as the 'United Kingdom', collectively referred to as the 'parties', agreed on this political statement on their future relations, on the basis of Article 50, paragraph 2, of the Treaty on European Union (TUE) for the negotiation of an agreement setting out the terms of withdrawal of a Member State leaving the European Union , taking into account the framework of its future relations with the Union. In this context, this declaration accompanies the withdrawal agreement that has been approved by the parties, subject to ratification of the latter.”

This political statement sets an ambiguous negotiating framework.

On the one hand, Article 2 states that: "The Union and the United Kingdom are committed to working together to preserve the rules-based international order, the rule of law and the promotion of democracy," and Article 6 reiterates this resolution, stating that: "6. The parties agree that their future relations should be based on common values such as respect for and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. principles, the rule of law and support for non-proliferation. The parties agree that these values are an essential precondition for the cooperation envisaged in this framework.”

However, while this declaration makes the recognition of democratic principles and the rule of law "an essential precondition for the proposed cooperation" with the United Kingdom, it ignores the democratic rights of people who, like my clients, put their trust in the European Union by moving to a Member State other than the one of which they had nationality, namely Brexpats (UK nationals based in another Member State) and Brimpats (citizens of other member states established in the United Kingdom).

The examination of the political declaration shows that the rights of these citizens are, excluding short-stay rights and some ancillary rights covered by Article 50 of the declaration, totally absent from the negotiation, the declaration focusing on economic and financial relations, security and criminal cooperation conditions and institutional relations.

We believe that this impasse not only contradicts the expectations of the political declaration, but also violates our fundamental rights in that it does not provide for the Brexpats to retain EU citizenship and that it does not provide for the preservation of the democratic rights they previously had in the United Kingdom.

We believe that this impasse not only contradicts the expectations of the political declaration, but that it violates our fundamental rights in that it does not provide for keeping Brexpats’ citizenship of the Union and in that it does not provide for keeping Brimpats’ democratic rights that they previously enjoyed in the United Kingdom.

And these rights are indissolubly linked because their concrete existence is, in many national constitutions, subordinated on the essential question of the right to vote in local elections to a condition of reciprocity.

You know our argument on this subject, because we have already criticized, before the General Court of the European Union, the withdrawal agreement, which was affected by the same deficiencies and Mr. Price, who lives in France is, on this point, your opponent before the European Union CJEU in the context of an emergency procedure.

We summarise it nonetheless.

We believe that the European citizenship of Brexpats cannot be automatically abrogated as a result of the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union, because it is "instituted" by Article 20 of the European Union Treaty, that is to say registered in the legal heritage of persons, and, therefore, cannot be removed if the persons in question have kept, like my clients, their domicile and their multiple private ties in the territory of the European Union.

Our position is in line with the Nottebohm case law of the International Court of Justice, which defines nationality and citizenship as a bond of solidarity between the State and the person dependent on the place of effective residence, and with the lessons of history France having, for example, during de-colonisation, retained the French nationality of people from its former colonies when they had established their domicile on French territory.

Our position is also in line with the case law of the CJEU, from which it emerges that the loss of European citizenship cannot, given its fundamental nature, automatically result, without examination, from the loss of nationality of a Member State ( March 12, 2019, Tjebbes and others v Netherlands, C- 221/17; December 10, 2018, Wightman v. Secretary of State for Brexit, C- 621-18; March 2, 2010, Janko Rottman v Free State of Bavaria, C-135/08).

In this regard, it should be noted that the Withdrawal Agreement of January 31, 2020 itself was in line with this reasoning. It has in fact retained all Union law in relations between UK and UE with the exception, in Article 127 (b), of certain rights recognized in the United Kingdom and on its territory for the Brimpats (voting rights in local elections, or rights of citizens' initiative). This does mean that the Brexpats had retained all their rights as citizens in the states where they resided - even though some, including France, refused to recognize it.

This consistency between the Withdrawal Agreement, the implications of European citizenship and case law, both international and European, must be maintained in future relations.

We are already seeing the political climate in the UK lending itself to this.

In fact, first of all, the coronavirus crisis has shown every state and every citizen the impossibility of going it alone in the event of a global crisis. Even the closing of the borders could not prevent the spread of the virus and medical research is faster when it is carried out together.

Then, more cynically, we note that the United Kingdom has the greatest difficulties in concluding with other third countries the proactive trade  agreements that Prime Minister Boris Johnson made a point of concluding, and in particular with his second trading partner, namely the United States, whose president had nevertheless promised him earth, moon and stars. These failures should lead it to be more conciliatory with Europe than in its current showing for the sake of preserving negotiating margins.

Finally, the United Kingdom has taken a first step in the right direction, having just recognized the Brimpats' right to vote in municipal elections, something unthinkable a year ago. Likewise, in the EU, it seems there is some flexibility in the agenda for Brexpats to move between member states.

The time therefore seems right to return to the ambition of the citizens who, Brimpats or Brexpats, have chosen European mobility, and for that, to recognize, without pretence, openly, officially , European citizenship for Brexpats, while inserting in the final agreement the right of Brimpats to local elections in the United Kingdom.

On this last point, this right, which protects the democratic rights of the Brimpats, would be more secure in a formal agreement with the Union, than if it remained isolated in British national law, at the mercy of any political situation. However, we believe it is particularly essential that the European Union also cares about the rights of its citizens established in the United Kingdom as it is concerned about all those around the world.

A political construction is above all made for men. Of course, data protection, tariffs, fishing rights, protection of intellectual property, transport, energy, public procurement or criminal cooperation are important subjects. But, they are much less so than the rights of the people. They don't actually exist without them.

And we recall that the European Union Treaty indicates, in its preamble, that the States were "RESOLVED to take a new step in the process of European integration initiated by the creation of the European Communities, ... CONFIRMED their attachment to the principles of freedom, democracy and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law ..., DESIRING to strengthen the democratic character and the efficiency of the functioning of institutions, in order to enable them to better fulfil , within a single institutional framework, the missions entrusted to them,… ”.

The Council of the European Union, after the nationalist shock of Brexit, must return to this fine project and send a signal to the peoples of Europe by recognizing the European citizenship of the Brexpats and by defending the democratic rights of the Brimpats in the proposed future agreement.

If it refused to take this path, then the Council of the European Union would be committing, as we defend before European courts, serious violations of the fundamental principles of the Union.

The Council already knows our arguments on this point and we will limit ourselves to summarizing it.

First, by excluding the Brexpats from the electoral processes they previously enjoyed - and in particular the right to vote in European elections - it would violate the democratic principles of the Union as, moreover, the European Court of Human Rights, in its time, already indicated for the citizens of Gibraltar, who did not have the right to vote in the European elections whereas they were statutorily subjected to the legal system of the Union (February 8, 1999, Mrs Matthews v. United Kingdom, n ° 24.833 / 94).

By excluding the Brexpats who have yet demonstrated their attachment to the European Union, the Council of the European Union is violating the principle of non-discrimination which protects them. They are indeed fully involved in the economic and cultural life of the countries where they reside and do not see the same rights recognized as those of other European citizens who have nevertheless made the same choices as them and exercised the same rights. It is impossible to consider that the fact that their fellow citizens on British territory have chosen to leave the European Union justifies this marked violation of the principle of equality.

For the undersigned, moreover, this discrimination is even more sensitive, since the United Kingdom has denied them the right to participate in the referendum on Brexit because they have been living outside its territory for more than 15 years. They are discriminated against by the European Union after the UK has ordered them to ‘keep quiet’. Where are the democratic values of the Union in such a context?

The consequences of losing European citizenship are such that a violation of the principle of proportionality must be recognized.

Indeed, the disappearance of European citizenship not only removes their remaining right to vote in elections of all kinds, but substantially modifies the conditions of the right to permanent residence which they peacefully enjoyed, and increasing the possible restrictions of this right, makes , despite all the declarations, their social rights uncertain and appreciably affects their standard of living by a modification of the tax guarantees from which the Court of Justice of the European Union made them benefit, seriously affecting their conditions of family movement between their country of origin and their host country or between the different Member States and even more seriously if some members of their family have the nationality of a Member State.

All these deleterious consequences, which are not exhaustive, would be avoided if the European citizenship of the Brexpats was recognized and if, in the agreement, in return, the European Union obtained the guarantee that the Brimpats would retain the right to UK local elections.

As we have already pointed out, the declaration on future relations does not include anything on this subject, except for a vague allusion to short stay rights.

But that in no way prevents the Union from ensuring that the negotiations also cover these purely and simply human aspects.

Indeed, we first observe that § 3 of this declaration states that: “If the parties consider that it is in their mutual interest during the negotiations, the future relations may encompass other areas of cooperation than those described in this political statement. "

In addition, the declaration states, at point 145, that 'Immediately after the withdrawal of the United Kingdom, and on the basis of their preparatory work, the parties will agree on a program including in particular:

a) the structure and format of the rounds of negotiations, including as regards parallel tracks; and

b) a formal calendar of negotiation rounds. "

Point 146 of the same declaration states that: “This program will be designed to achieve the common intention of the parties indicated in point 138.”. And according to point 138, "By defining the framework for future relations between the Union and the United Kingdom, this declaration confirms, as indicated in the Withdrawal Agreement, that the two parties clearly intend to put in place in good faith of the agreements giving effect to these relations and to start the formal negotiation process as soon as possible after the UK's withdrawal from the Union, so that they can enter into force by the end of 2020" .

It is therefore up to the Council of the European Union, both to respect the fundamental rights of Brexpats and Brimpats and to take advantage of the political opportunity already highlighted on the current position of the United Kingdom, to register the citizenship rights of both Brexpats and Brimpats, as an area of further cooperation with the UK.

In this regard, we observe that the European Commission submitted to the Member States a “draft agreement” referenced UKTF 2020 (15) on foreign, security and defence policy, whereas the United Kingdom did not want to hear about it.

Without discussing the Union's priorities, we are astonished that the rights of citizenship, which are fundamental to creating a union - that some have wanted to destroy - between peoples, contributing greatly to our collective security, has not been the subject of similar concerns.

Pursuant to Articles 20 and 25 TFEU, Articles 7 and 39 to 46 of the Charter as well as the order of the General Court of July 14, 2020 T-627/19, we therefore ask the Council of the Union European, making use of Article 218 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and point 3 of the declaration on future relations adopted with the Withdrawal Agreement, to set in the negotiating program of the European Union negotiator before the end of year 2020:

i) recognition of European citizenship for Brexpats,

ii) the guarantee of the electoral rights which the United Kingdom has granted to the Brimpats.

We indicate that this letter will serve, if necessary, as a starting point for an action in default.

But, we are confident that we will not have to come to this, as the UK has, in recognizing the Brimpats' right to vote in local elections, moved most of the way. And in an undoubtedly gloomy current context, showing success for the benefit of European citizens, British or not, would be particularly useful for the European Union.

With our thanks, we ask you, Mr. President and Members of the Council of the European Union, to accept the expression of our highest consideration.

Made in Bordeaux,

August 14, 2020

Julien FOUCHET

Millions of UK Citizens who have lived abroad for over 15 years were denied a vote on their future in the EU referendum. This is illegal under EU law. Equal treatment among European citizens is a fundamental principle laid down in the European Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Voting rights for all UK citizens regardless of time lived abroad were promised by David Cameron in 2015, and May Government in October 2016, with the promise that they would be given prior to the next General Election. These promises remain unfulfilled.
The first legal challenge in the EU Court against the Withdrawal agreement on behalf of ten representative appellants including unstoppable 100 year old WW2 war veteran Harry Shindler.

The case had its first hearing before the General Court of the European Union in Luxembourg on 5th July 2018, by a panel of no less than five judges, which reflected the importance of the case as perceived in the legal corridors in Luxembourg. The judges considered the detailed arguments over two hours. On 26th November the Court gave its ruling :
The service of Article 50 Notice and the negotiations have not resulted in any loss of citizenship rights since the final agreement is not yet signed and there has been no 'final act'. The Article 50 Notice is only 'preparatory'. So the court cannot make any ruling until the rights have been lost (!).
That’s why, since the 30th January, for Harry Shindler and others, the first request against the withdrawal agreement was filed to the General Court of the European Union by the lawyer Julian Fouchet in Bordeaux.
The loss of EU citizenship without any assessment on the proportionality of its impacts is the principal areas.
The funding target has been raised to £60,000 to provide funds to fight this crucial stage.
PLEASE DONATE NOW - EVERY DONATION WILL HELP. THIS COULD BE ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT LEGAL CHALLENGES TO DATE.

Thank you very much
Best regards
Julien Fouchet

Action filed before the General Court of EU against the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United kingdom.

For all the brits, democracy, right of vote, solidarity

No distinction between the european citizens and the United Kingdom nationals

Everybody behind me, the claimants and especially Harry Shindler (veteran of second world war) we need !

Municipal Election in France - March 2020

"Every citizen of the Union has the right to vote and to stand as a candidate at municipal elections in the Member State in which he or she resides under the same conditions as nationals of that State. "

Or 800 persons will deprive to continue to stand of the municipal team.

The European Citizenship cannot be cancelled according the article 50 TEU and 20 TFEU

The fight goes on before the administratives judges in France and the judges in Luxembourg

I am counting on you to help me to pursue all possible and credible actions, mainly before European judges. Urgent legal action will be taken to this end as a matter of European solidarity. 

Before 31 October 2019, I am the only one who can bring an urgent action and obtain an hearing before the European judge because I have filed prior appeals for this purpose and I need you to go through with it. 

European citizenship is our common heritage, the most important good after the peace that Europe has given us, do not let anyone trample on it

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator

We will defend the European Citizenship and the right of vote of british for the European Election in France.

15 year rule = deprivation of vote for the european Elections too and the question of the 5 "ghostdeputies" in France dependant of the Brexit.

The european deputies have a role to play concerning the Brexit's ratification.

We will defend the European Citizenship and the right of vote of british for the European Election in France.

To be registered after the brexit's delay decision of the 11 April and before the European Election ; for a derogation article L30 Electoral code with the article 50 TEU.

Don't touch my European Citizenship and the rights of it !

French barrister Julien Fouchet had applied to administrative court the Conseil d’Etat for a fast-tracked ruling on behalf of ten Britons living in France, challenging the legality of the French no-deal ordonnance which was published in February.

He had applied the same thing for the decree of 2th april 2019.

He said it assumed Britons to have become non-EU citizens after Brexit, which Mr Fouchet disagrees with. 

Mr Fouchet had hoped the Conseil would refer the matter urgently for clarification from the European Court of Justice (ECJ), so it could be settled before the original Brexit day of March 29.

However the court has replied saying that it does not find any urgency due to rules in the French government’s ordonnance, clarified in a decree last week, :

-No emergency about the cancelling of European Citizenship because of the European decision of 11th april 2019 to make an extension of brexit to 31th October 2019

-British people could live legally in France for a year with no residency documents after a no-deal Brexit.

But the others actions ("recours en annulation") with no emergency continue against the ordonnance and the decree.

There is a request before ECHR too and soon a request concerning the european election by me Fouchet (31 march to save the vote in France but the extension was decided the 11 april th)

the fight for the European Citizenship forever goes on !